Posts Tagged ‘Dianetics’

The sign
Pictured above is the sign that serves as a jumping-off point for this little article.

This one is the only one I have seen in my neighborhood, however, when I walked through the Land Park neighborhood (an affluent area just south of downtown built in the early 1900s) I saw several of them.

The Sacramento Bee ran an article concerning this sign sometime back, reporting that someone had gotten in trouble with their neighborhood association for posting this sign (and then getting more so other neighbors could put them in their yards) on the basis that it made the yards look “cluttered” and therefore could be a threat to local land values. This was a specious (deceptive) argument, to say the least.

The sign itself, of course, is a reaction to the perceived threat of a reactionary US President and the beliefs of those who brought him into office. But due to the need for visibility and limited space, the “liberal” concepts it tries to convey are delivered in oversimplified phrases that have very little literal meaning.

Most of these sentiments are stated as logical tautologies, or equivalences if you were speaking mathematically, by using the word “is” or “are.” In Dianetics, such phrases – if taken seriously – would be considered “identity thinking.” In identity thinking, “road” could equal “rode” could equal “rowed” because they are all pronounced the same. To state such a thing in writing, however, would be an obvious mistake, or taken as a joke.

Let’s go through these sentiments one at a time:

All People are Equal

Though, literally, this is obviously untrue (it would be truer to say, “all people are different”), it is of course meant to convey the idea that people should all be treated equally by our public institutions, such as police, courts, schools, even businesses.

This is a common liberal idea and is widely agreed to, yet obviously not well-complied with. Furthermore, propaganda meant to be divisive (as in “divide and conquer”) exploits the many obvious differences between people to weaken or break community bonds that tend to form normally as people live and work together. The huge question is: Who has been forwarding such divisive propaganda, and to what ends? It has been going on for centuries, and even though we have established equal rights for all in the legal arena, this seems to have very little effect on the divisive ideas spewing from…where?

Though the legal arena was an obvious target that needed to be corrected, it should be clear by now that it was not the source of these ideas, but simply used by some to enforce inequalities. Most liberals have nothing to say about this. They simply don’t know where the divisiveness is coming from.

Love is Love

Though totally meaningless at a superficial level, this I assume is meant to convey that we should not judge others based on who or what they love. It is a grand and sweeping concept, but rarely practiced with any rigor. What liberal, for instance, would welcome my religion into their lives (though its concepts would assist them greatly in many ways)? The intellectual world has been so riddled with lies and half-truths (perhaps it has always been this way) that many cannot really decide what to believe, but tend to believe what they are told by individuals or institutions that are thought to align with their way of thinking.

Black Lives Matter

This is a restatement of the first sentiment for the case of race in particular. Black Lives Matter originated as an organization in 2013 after the Trayvon Martin shooting, when the killer was let off on the argument that he thought his life was in danger. It is only one of many historical attempts to deal with the obvious targeting of dark-skinned people, and particularly the people of Africa or African descent, for “inferior” treatment, if not outright extermination.

This was an issue when I was in junior high school (late 1960s) and there were concerted attempts to teach white children about black history even back then. It is obvious to me that this issue goes beyond the realm of ordinary human empathy and understanding and is being fueled by people who desperately want to keep it alive, don’t care about either whites or blacks or anyone in between, and have inserted themselves into society – largely undetected – in positions where they can continue to fan the flames of race hatred. I am sure those persons are hoping that race hatred will never die and that they will always have it in their arsenal of methods for weakening or destroying human communities.

Psychologically, such people are “criminally insane,” and our only hope on this issue is to identify them and shut down their operations. The average liberal, however, would not be able to think in these terms. That is why I – and many others – believe that liberalism itself has been subverted by some very slick operators who knew just what strings to pull.

Immigrants and Refugees are Welcome

I very much sympathize with this point of view, yet it is much easier said than done. The average local American community today is already overwhelmed by crime problems and/or economic problems. Local managers failed to notice or understand the takeovers they were experiencing, or let themselves be recruited into those operations on the promise of financial rewards.

Local communities should be able to expand to take on new residents and integrate them into the local economy. This has happened to various degrees in many places. Yet the same attitudes and knowledge gaps that allowed the general situation to deteriorate to the point it has impedes us in this effort as well.

And of course, most modern migration pressures have been caused by war, which is one of the biggest human failings of history and one of the most intractable. With what I have learned about this subject, I don’t think the human race will be successful in handling the subject of war unless it advances considerably in spiritual awareness. The subject has that much complexity associated with it.

Science is Real

Here again we have a sentiment rendered superficially meaningless through oversimplification of expression. I assume that what it is really referring to is the fact that the scientific community has long been warning about the ultimate consequences of our headlong march towards a high-tech planet.

An early example of this was the Ozone Hole. Certain man-made gasses were getting into the stratosphere where they were causing depletion of the Earth’s ozone layer, particularly at the poles. This was noticed in the 1970s, the link to CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons – freon) was proven, and steps were taken internationally to reduce airborne CFCs. Observations indicate that the “holes” discovered are now reducing. The ozone layer helps shield the planet from excessive ultraviolet light, which is damaging to life forms.

One of the great scientists of earlier years, Gregor Mendel (genetics), though well-schooled, lived as the friar of a monastery for much of his adult life, and also worked as a teacher. All he needed for his work was time and a garden where he could grow his peas. His discoveries were significant, though not really recognized as such until after his death. Modern scientists often work with very complex and expensive machinery, for which they must convince corporate sponsors to provide large research grants. This leaves the sponsors, to some significant measure, in control of what science studies. Scientists have also been employed by governments to develop new weapons systems. The most significant modern example of this was the development of the atom bomb in the 1940s.

It is said that many scientists today are employed in secret programs. There are also many employed by a variety of companies for the purpose of developing ideas or materials that those companies can then use to enhance their profitability. The most scientific freedom is considered to exist at universities, yet I would guess that “garage scientists” have the most freedom today, limited though by their financial resources.

John E. Mack is an example of a tenured professor who got into trouble with his school administration (Harvard Medical School) due to his abiding interest in “alien abduction” experiences. Though he was vindicated, it is also noted that he had some very influential backers such as Laurence Rockefeller.

One might ask, then: What is real? This is what most people – and true liberals should be among the first to take a closer look at this – are having trouble with today. Various sectors of society have skipped ahead of the mainstream, and are exploring in areas that are considered quite “unreal” to most people. Those involved in such subjects are very aware of their reality, yet forces exist in society – as mentioned above – that would prefer the majority of the population not be exposed to such data yet, if ever.

A recent unusual event in this regard was the New York Times coverage of a story about a “secret” Pentagon program known as the Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program. The story then spread to other mainstream news outlets. This exposed mainstream audiences to the idea that UFOs are real, and that some possibly pose a military threat to Earth.

Women’s Rights are Human Rights

Though superficially this is simply a restatement of the earlier affirmation that “all people are equal,” I am guessing this refers in particular to “reproductive rights” which also intersects with the moral issue of sexual behavior.

This is a very touchy area. Everyone understands the need for sex as the way to perpetuate our species. But very few understand why they often feel compelled to indulge in sexual conduct regardless of their marital status or need, desire, or ability to nurture children. There is a disconnect there that few are able to fathom. On the one hand, the data I have indicate that it is wiser to err in the direction of celibacy. This somewhat supports the “Right” who want to keep sex “in the family.” But they don’t have my data and are usually operating under moral imperatives taught by their religions. I could say that in this case, those teachings were onto something. But where is the rest of the data, that would tie the whole thing together and give it some sense?

Look: If you are basically an immortal spiritual being, then – basically – there is no reason for sex to be important to you. But no one is talking about that angle of the issue. The result is an argument that could go on forever – and probably will.

Just to restate the data I have relating to abortion: The embryo is of course a living animal, on the order of a fish or a chicken. We consider it OK to kill fish or chickens, yet that is because we use them for food. Thus, the killing of an embryo is an otherwise pointless killing of an animal. The being – the personality, you could say – usually attaches to the body around the time of birth. At that point you are dealing with a full human being who should ideally have full human rights. Part of recognizing those rights, however, relies on recognizing what that human being really is and why it came here to live on Earth. Most people have no idea about this.

People and Planet are valued over Profit

This is the ideological link to various anti-capitalist ideologies that liberals have always been sympathetic to but never felt they needed to support 100 percent. This sentiment opens the door to wiping out big business. Yet, even though we all see that something is wrong in this sector of life, and has been for ages and ages, what exactly that is has never really been pinned down. Supporters of capitalism, and in particular of the idea of free markets have some very strong arguments. Yet they show no real superior understanding of the situation. Society’s charge towards a high-tech future, alluded to earlier, has been led by big corporations. Why should we trust our future to their leadership? I don’t think we should. But what the current situation is telling us is that those big companies know more about this subject than we do. And this is probably correct. So, if we can’t find some way to catch up, those new leaders become our de facto leaders. Right now, there’s just no one else out there wearing those boots. I don’t like it, but I know I don’t have the resources to replace them with more enlightened personnel.

Where I last worked, our company founder used to tell us that “risk is the moral justification for profit.” The implication was that profit (you could call it usury) would otherwise have no moral justification. However, the most basic economic concept of profit is embedded in the life cycle of our species. It is most obvious at the front end, when the being is growing its body, that body not yet big enough or strong enough to be fully productive. Someone who is fully productive has to be willing to share a portion of the wealth (or energy) it has earned with the younger ones who are not ready yet. Thus, he must make a “profit.” Profit for its own sake amounts to little more than a sort of PR or propaganda: “I am better than you are,” it says. Well, this might be true in some ways, but anyone who basically understood the situation would not indulge in such foolishness. My point is that profit per se is not our problem. Profit for its own sake can be a problem, and profits obtained by unethical (criminal) means is criminal profit and should be so treated.

According to higher ethical principles, when a being or group acts to enrich only itself at the expense of the other dynamics, they are not being ethical enough. This is probably what this line on the yard sign is really trying to convey.

Diversity is Celebrated

In contrast to the notion that “all people are equal” we are going to celebrate diversity. Well, this is a nice phrase. I’m not sure how it should be implemented, and you can see the irony in it, juxtaposed with the first phrase. But, what if you went ahead to say: Nonconformity is celebrated? This brings this issue out a little more sharply.

Compared to many places and cultures on this planet, the United States remains a quite liberal place and culture. Yet, something has changed. How was Communism able to retain its position as a “left wing” ideology even after abuses under Stalin and Mao clearly indicated is was operating closer to a totalitarianism? How did liberalism come to embrace atheism, even to the extent of rejecting my religion – which does not define god – as well as its more tradition-oriented relative, the New Age Movement? Why are most liberals so sure the Creationists are wrong?

In short: We have been played (fooled, as in a con game). A criminal element took advantage of our uncertainties, our insecurities, and our lack of really excellent memory to pull us into a game that we find very much less than ideal, and certainly not in good alignment with our own ideals.

We were on the verge, in the 1960s, of beginning to discover what the rest of our universe – starting with our own moon – was really all about. And certain individuals, certain groups, did not want this to occur. So they began on a course of establishing a wall of fake knowledge to keep us away from higher truths that would have been inconvenient for us to learn. A few found out anyway, and they were marginalized or eliminated (like JFK was) as seemed suitable to that new enforcement group. The rest who know are either part of that group, are too afraid of them to speak out, or are considered too unimportant to warrant much attention.

As was briefly mentioned above, there seems to be some change in this situation in very recent times. It remains to be seen how far-reaching that change will be. Certainly, my church continues to forge ahead. Yet it is still encountering strong opposition in some quarters. More “whistle blowers” are coming forward. Yet what they have to share does not seem that revelatory at this point.

But all this could change. For one thing, my religion continues to grow. For most who are exposed to those materials, there is no turning back. Like the people who have out-of-body experiences. The impression it has on them is just too strong to ignore. Beyond that, the UFO sightings just won’t go away. They are a constant reminder – almost to the point of nagging – that we need to get smart as a species and quick.

I for one cannot predict a time in the near future when things will get quiet and peaceful here on Earth the way they used to be before the Industrial Revolution. I am aware that we are faced with choices, choices that most don’t even fully understand. There seem to be basically two: “progress” and “sustainability.” “Progress” leads us into an era of Space Opera. At this point, most of us don’t realize that we have all lived through Space Opera probably multiple times before. So it is being successfully promoted as a step forward in our evolution as a species. That’s a lie, and the current managers seem to be afraid we will remember our own pasts and realize this. The other choice involves a retreat from Space Opera into a time of ecological balance and spiritual improvement. Those promoting this are wonderful people, very idealistic. But they really have no idea what they are up against. They will end up with nice personal lives, but it is unclear what else they will end up with.

A third choice exists. It involves getting smart very quick, and then choosing a more workable path than either of the two main paths currently being offered to us. That would be a great adventure. The potential for great wins is enormous. And I suppose so is the potential for great losses. But if you factor in the knowledge that a being is basically unkillable and always at cause, I think the potential for win is greater, as these are immutable truths that no one can really take from us, no matter how hard they try.

As we approach a new year, I wish all who read this a great and most remarkable future.

I started this blog a couple of years ago because my web design teacher asked me to.

Less than a year ago, I began to pay attention to “tags” and add them to my posts. And after that, people started finding my posts, following my blog, and leaving comments.

This is a very new blog, and writing for the internet is new for me.

Very recently “Amedar” requested that I expand on some of the themes I write about. Amedar, if you see this, send another comment to me and tell me what you are most interested in.

Meanwhile, I will go over some basics for new readers.

I am currently unemployed, so have the time to read and write and “step back” a little. I hope that my readers are all doing well, but I also hope that you can afford to “step back” from your lives now and again and look at things from a broader perspective.

I don’t particularly want these posts to be about me. Nor do they need to be about you. But I think that you, the reader, have a right to know a bit about the person who is sending out these messages.

I was born in 1954, in Berkeley, California. I grew up in California, and between 1964 and 1976, in Ann Arbor, Michigan. My parents were both first-generation college graduates. They expected all their children to be second-generation college graduates. But, while my sister and brother went down this path quite willingly, I did not.

My sister and brother don’t particularly remember the day in 1963 that Kennedy was killed in Dallas, Texas. But I do. And I will never forget the line of questioning that originated in my mind as a result of those events: Why did this happen? Why would anyone want to kill the President?

There were many other questions. Many digressions. Many stops along the way to learn a skill, learn to cook, learn to play guitar, to read what others were thinking about.

But finally I ran into a person, through a book he wrote, who seemed genuinely interested in the exact same question that I had started with. And so I decided to devote some time to learning more about what he had to say. And I also decided, for better or for worse, to move to Los Angeles and work for the organization that was making it possible for people like me to find this man’s books and read them.

My time in Los Angeles was interesting for me. After all, it was where both my parents had been born and grew up. But I didn’t want that to be my story. I wanted to do something to connect more people with Hubbard’s story. It had helped me to understand some things. And his suggestions, when I was brave enough to follow them, had helped me personally to survive at a higher level. So after 26 years in Los Angeles, I decided it was time for me to go back out into the “real world” and see what I could do about this.

I used my interests in computers, science fiction, UFOs, psychology, Scientology and the arts as stepping stones back into the bigger world of ideas and actions. And I began to write about these topics from the perspective of what I had learned from “my teacher” L. Ron Hubbard while I was in Los Angeles.

The Clash of Opposing Intentions

What I found as I listened and read and wrote was that opposing intentions existed on this planet that were largely hidden and, therefore, almost impossible for anyone to understand. We see the results of these struggles. Wars, famine, terrorist attacks, crime. But we are not privy to the machinations behind these events, and are lead to believe that, since they always have happened, they will always continue to happen. But how are we to survive? How is our planet to survive? If the apparent destructiveness of Mankind cannot somehow be resolved?

According to Hubbard, it is somewhat workable to simplify this clash of intentions along one common theme: The urge to survive.

What this implies is that beings exist who, for some reason, no longer wish to survive. At first look, this seems like an absurd proposition. But every day people die of “natural causes,” “accidents,” “suicide.” Does not this fact betray an urge to succumb in Mankind? In fact, if people never died, how would we make room for all the people who seem to want to be born?

When Hubbard wrote Dianetics in 1950, he posed this problem in terms of traditional psychology, with one important twist: The mind, somehow, can make the body do things that aren’t good for it, or simply make no sense. He interpreted this, at that time, as a kind of accidental post-hypnotic suggestion. Hypnotists are noted for getting people to act in bizarre ways simply by installing a suggestion during hypnosis, then triggering it after the person is brought out of trance. This was an observable, working mechanism, and Hubbard proposed that people were being affected by it, willy-nilly, in the process of going through life. Dianetics was devoted to explaining all this, and teaching a method for ridding a person of unwanted hypnotic commands.

Dianetics was a great stride forward. Because it enabled us to assume that the individual always wants to survive, and that he only succumbs because he picks up hypnotic commands during the process of living that tell him he should succumb. This made us the “good guys” and the commands the “bad guys.”

That, however, was only the beginning of the story. What Hubbard did not have time to verify before he published Dianetics was that some people, in therapy, were remembering past lives (and deaths).

This was a real problem. Addressing those incidents as if they were real, and not just imagined, helped patients get better. So Hubbard was not willing to write this off. It’s just that this took him beyond the limits of traditional psychology and back into the philosophies that he had studied in Asia, and that Carl Jung had toyed with in his later years. It took him, frankly, into the realm of religion.

By 1954, Hubbard was getting so much flak from various academic, political and media groups that he finally went along with the suggestion of one of his students and established a church, thinking this would help protect his work from undue interference.

This actually worked out okay. But it’s not a very important part of the story. To this day, enemies of spiritual freedom try to harass Hubbard and the church for all their real and imagined faults. But that’s all a bit beside the point, isn’t it?

What did Hubbard go on to discover? That’s the real question.

The work of the church has helped to answer that question for those who are interested. The church has preserved all of his recorded lectures – which number about 3,000 – and has restored most of them and released them on CDs. Virtually all of his written materials are available. Besides roughly 20 books, there are about 13 large volumes of Technical Bulletins and a similar number of similar-sized volumes of Policy Letters.

It’s a lot of material. I have not studied nearly all of it yet, and actually very few people get the opportunity to do so. But it is a worthy goal, in my opinion. Because, the work, for the most part, seems actually workable.

I emphasize in my posts the material that I think is most pertinent to current events on earth. Ethics, the Suppressive personality, and the Third Party Law are key basics that all of us should be aware of. Do they apply well in every situation you will run into? Well, I don’t really know. I hope some people will try applying some of this data and let me know how it goes for them. It’s a learning process for all of us.

A Resource I highly recommend

I really like the site that I link to below. I would like to know what others think about this site, and if it seems like something useful to you.

I have been trained on all the courses listed on this site. So feel free to ask me about them in your comments. But if you want the benefits of these technologies for yourself, you will have to go ahead and get trained in them yourself. That’s just how that works.